The Weekly Standard reserves the right to use your email for internal use only. Occasionally,
we may send you special offers or communications from carefully selected advertisers we believe may be of benefit to our subscribers.
Click the box to be included in these third party offers. We respect your privacy and will never rent or sell your email.

Please include me in third party offers.

The last thing State Department spokesman Mark Toner says about Ambassador Howard Gutman, the U.S. diplomat in Belgium, at today's press briefing is: "We have full confidence in him."

Ambassador Howard Gutman

But it's the exchange leading up to that admission that's particularly interesting, as it's devoid of both content and substance. Toner wants it both ways--to defend the ambassador who said that Israel is partly responsible for anti-Semitism and not to endorse Gutman's remarks. And to say that Gutman is speaking for himself even though he is at an official event giving a speech as a representative of the United States.

In short, it's worth reading the exchange to see just how badly the State Department wants to condemn anti-Semitism and yet not confront the fact that one of its ambassador made an excuse for it while serving in an official capacity:

Q: I'll start with Ambassador Gutman's speech from last week. Does the -- did the administration sign off on this, or was it vetted by anyone in EUR or NEA? And does the administration agree with the sentiments that he expressed in his speech?

MR. TONER: I think you saw -- actually, let me start again. I'm not aware that his remarks were cleared back here in Washington. He made very clear in a subsequent statement that they were his thoughts or his remarks. He did condemn -- he -- and was very vocal about condemning anti-Semitism in all its forms, and I believe he expressed regret that his words might have been taken out of context.

Q: Do you -- do you think that they were taken out of context?

MR. TONER: I'm sorry. In --

Q: Does the administration agree with the content of the -- of Ambassador Gutman's speech?

MR. TONER: I think have to say -- and you've seen, obviously, the White House --

Q: Well, no, actually I had to get those -- they were apparently being only sent to select people. I wasn't selected, maybe because I was gone, but --

MR. TONER: You're always selected.

Q: -- I have -- I have seen them, however. I'm -- but they don't answer the question about whether the administration agrees with what Ambassador Gutman said in his speech.

MR. TONER: And the administration and the State Department says that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Q: That's great, Mark. I'm glad that you do. And I'm sure everyone is glad that you do. But do you agree with the content of Ambassador Gutman's speech?

MR. TONER: We --

Q: I don't know -- it's a pretty easy question. Yes or no?

MR. TONER: It is a -- it is -- it is -- it was his remarks. It was his opinion --

Q: So he wasn't speaking on -- the ambassador to Belgium, he was not speaking --

MR. TONER: He was not speaking on behalf -- I think he's said as much. He said it was his remarks and he was speaking on his own --

Q: No, he didn't. He did not say that. He -- but he was not speaking on behalf of the U.S. government?

MR. TONER: I don't believe so.

Q: So the -- OK, the ambassador to Belgium shows up at a conference in Europe, in Belgium, and he is not speaking on behalf of the U.S. government. Is that correct?

MR. TONER: The ambassador was expressing his views on an issue.

Q: They're not the view -- so these --

MR. TONER: He subsequently -- he subsequently issued a statement clarifying that he was -- and expressing regret if his remarks were taken out of context. He then said that he does condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms and in fact pointed to his own family history as a -- as a testament to that.

Q: So are you -- well, I understand that. But you're saying that he was speaking as a private citizen, not as the U.S. ambassador?

MR. TONER: Well, of course, when -- any time an ambassador speaks, he is representing the United States.

Q: So the views that he expressed in his speech do not represent the views of the administration?

MR. TONER: Matt, I made it very clear --

Q: Mark, I understand that you condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I understand that, OK? I'm asking you if you agree with the content of his speech, which he gave as the U.S. ambassador to Belgium.

MR. TONER: And I would just say that he was -- he was sharing his views on an issue. Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad. The United States -- or Israel has no greater friend or ally than the United States. And we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Q: OK, that's fine. But I don't -- I'm not hearing in there -- unless you're going to tell me right out he was speaking as a private citizen as not as the ambassador. Is that -- that's what you're saying?

Q: That his comments were delivered as a -- as a private citizen, not as a representative of the U.S. government?

MR. TONER: Again -- (chuckles) -- we've been very clear that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms regardless of, you know, how call it or how you characterize it.

Q: Do you -- do you think that -- do you -- OK, so you do not agree, then, with the -- with the -- with the contents of the ambassador's speech?

MR. TONER: I think I'll just stop there.

Q: Well -- (chuckles) -- (inaudible) -- this guy, who is the --

MR. TONER: I think I just said we condemn anti-Semitism in all of its forms.

Q: OK, so you don't draw a distinction between criticism of Israel --

MR. TONER: No.

Q: -- and --

MR. TONER: No, we don't -- we don't draw any -- we don't --

Q: All criticism of Israel -- all criticism of Israel is anti- Semitism? (Laughter.) Is that what you're saying?

MR. TONER: Look, I will leave it to the ambassador to Belgium to clarify what he meant by his remarks --

Q: Does the -- does the -- does the --

MR. TONER: -- to this gathering. I can only speak on behalf of this administration, and that is that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Q: Does the administration think that Israel is above reproach, in other words, that Israel should not -- should not be criticized for anything?

MR. TONER: Speaking largely about the issue that was on the table, which is Middle East peace and the importance of it and, frankly, the stability that it brings to the region, we've been very clear that, you know, the best way to a lasting peace is through the negotiating table. That remains our focus. We want to get both sides back into direct negotiations.

Q: Surely, though, the administration has, with the specific example of -- I'll use settlements here, you have been --

MR. TONER: Absolutely.

Q: The administration has been critical of the Israeli government, correct? Yes?

MR. TONER: If we're talking now about efforts to get both sides back to the negotiating table, we have been very clear when either of the parties, we believe, does actions or takes actions that are not constructive to that process.

Q: This administration has been critical of the government of Israel before, correct?

MR. TONER: Of course.

Q: Yes. Do you -- is that criticism anti-Semitic?

MR. TONER: Of course not.

Q: So all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism?

MR. TONER: Again, I don't want to parse this out. I just simply want to say --

Q: I know you don't want to, because you're in a very difficult position.

MR. TONER: -- we condemn -- we condemn anti-Semitism in all of its forms, OK?

Q: You're saying, though, that you accept a distinction between criticism of Israel and -- criticism of the government of -- the policies of the government of Israel and anti-Semitism. You draw a distinction between the two things, correct?

MR. TONER: I'd just say that this administration has consistently stood up against anti-Semitism and efforts to delegitimize Israel and will continue to do so.

Q: Does the administration believe that you can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic?

MR. TONER: I think that when it comes to trying to keep the parties focused on the peace process and in citing behavior that is not constructive to that process, we are certainly able to do that and have done so in the past.

Q: Does the administration believe that you can be -- that one can be critical of the policies of the government of Israel without being anti-Semitic? Yes or no?

MR. TONER: Well, again, I think I just answered the question, that we have been critical --

Q: OK, so you're saying that there -- you do draw a distinction between criticism -- between criticism of the government of Israel, of policies of the government of Israel, and -- in other words, not all criticism of -- when you come out and you say, we think that more settlements are a bad idea, that doesn't mean the administration is anti-Semitic, right?

MR. TONER: Of course. Of course. Of course.

Q: OK. So in his speech, Ambassador Gutman draws a distinction between the classic anti-Semitism and some kind of new form of hatred toward Jews, which is based -- what he said, based on the policies of the government of Israel.

Do you -- do you -- it sounds as though you accept that there is a distinction between the -- between the two.

MR. TONER: What Ambassador Gutman was -- I believe what he was trying to convey is that there are different forms of anti-semitism. We condemn them in all their forms.

Q: All right.

I've got another on Israel, but it's not on this subject.

Q: Can I just follow up briefly on that? Some Republicans have called for the administration to fire Ambassador Gutman. Is there -- does the administration have a response to that, have a position on --